Don’t support the troops, don’t support the war

An age-old, worn-out adage is still thrown around these days: “I support the troops, but I don’t support the war.”

Take a moment to think what this actually means. If you are intellectually honest with yourself, you would realize this is a logical contrivance. The troops are the war: The war is the troops.

“But Jack, they are just following the backward policy initiatives of our politicians.”
Well, I suppose so, but wasn’t the Nuremburg defense invalidated back in the ’40s? Certainly there is ample evidence of the disastrous nature of the U.S. involvement in Iraq. No matter your background, this evidence is enough to know better than to ship yourself to the Middle East.

“But Jack, they have no choice. They are bound by their low socio-economic status.”
This overused rebuttal is laughable. Of course they have a choice. One always has a choice. As I recall, the draft ended quite a few years ago.

I am not denying the fact that their choice may have been a more difficult one, more difficult than perhaps I have ever had to face, but there is always a choice.

Remember that there is quite a difference between providing an excuse and providing an explanation. If we continue to insist they have no choice, we are guaranteeing that our military and its troops will be justified in their actions for time immemorial, no matter how heinous the nature of their actions.

Besides, those who are solely influenced by the promise of monetary gain and a college education cannot account for all American soldiers. Certainly there are some whose intentions are less benign, motivated by the romanticized desire to wield a gun and go kill some Arabs. Are we to justify their actions?

Why then, in the face of weak logic and ample evidence to the contrary, do liberal apologists still spew out the same old excuses? They have conformed to a closed dialogue, devoid of critical analysis, afraid to step on the supposedly sacrosanct feet of patriotism. Thus the scapegoat stock argument continues.

Perhaps you don’t want to be disrespectful. Well, personally I have no reservations disrespecting state-sponsored murder.

I support the troops as human beings, not as troops. This may appear like a sheer semantics of language, but the difference is essential. By stating that you support the troops, you are avoiding a discussion that would challenge a potentially dangerous institution.

As human beings, these individuals should come home, care for their families and not wreak havoc on other mothers, fathers, sons and daughters. To approve of their actions would be to dismiss the hundreds of thousands who have needlessly lost their lives (perhaps you forgot that Iraqis predominantly constitute the human loss of life).

My column should not be construed as a statement of universal pacifism but rather a strong recommendation that whenever we as a nation choose to endeavor in something so grave in nature as war, we must champion an environment where differing opinions thrive. We are not in that environment.

Unless we choose to integrate something new into the discussion, ideas and words that are not tainted by group think, a military-industrial complex will railroad on into eternity. The sacredness of human life always takes precedence over an institution, even the military.

Open up the dialogue and stop making excuses.